CONSERVATIVES DISAPPOINTED WITH 'SHIFT' BY REAGAN

By ROBERT PEAR, Special to the New York Times

Published: June 26, 1983

WASHINGTON, June 25—
Ideological conservatives, who provided the core of Ronald Reagan's support in 1980, have been deeply disappointed with his performance as President, especially what they regard as his growing moderation in advance of the 1984 campaign.

The conservatives said in interviews this week that they agreed with most of Mr. Reagan's goals but felt he had been too timid in fighting for them. As an example, they noted that he was no longer pressing Congress to abolish the Department of Education.

Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, said Mr. Reagan, in adopting a ''nonconfrontational political strategy to mollify the Washington establishment,'' seemed to have forgotten the people who ''sustained him in the political wilderness for all those years.''

''President Reagan has not proposed, much less achieved, a balanced budget; has not fundamentally changed the nation's arms control policies, and has not stopped the buildup of Soviet power in the Western Hemisphere,'' Mr. Phillips said. ''The failures are a result of his overarching strategy: articulating policy aspirations that inspire conservative hopes, but then pressing to implement those objectives only to the degree they can be accomplished by consensus. And consensus is impossible to achieve if fundamental change is the goal.'' Betrayal of Principles Seen

Joel M. Skousen, executive editor of Conservative Digest, a monthly magazine published by Richard A. Viguerie, the conservative fund-raiser, said that ''Mr. Reagan is now seen as untrustworthy by many conservatives who believe he has betrayed his own principles in an effort to appease his critics'' on such domestic issues as education, welfare, the budget and taxes.

Ideological conservatives have been expressing similar views for at least a year, but their concerns take on special urgency as the 1984 election approaches. Many conservatives said the President seemed to take their support for granted, on the assumption that they had no place to go and would have to back him if he ran for re-election. The conservatives conceded they were unlikely to support another candidate, but said the more significant question was how hard they would work for Mr. Reagan if he ran.

''If the present trend continues, as we expect, ideological conservatives would withhold their support from the President,'' Mr. Skousen said. ''We would not actively campaign for him.''

John D. Lofton Jr., a conservative columnist for The Washington Times who calls himself an ''unreconstructed Reaganite,'' said: ''The President lacks the courage of his convictions, which are sound. Conservative activists are the core constituency of the Republican Party. If they sit on their hands in a close contest, Republican candidates for the Presidency, for Congress and for local office would all be in trouble.'' Reagan Aide Acknowledges Debt

Morton C. Blackwell, a special assistant to the President who serves as his liaison agent with conservative organizations and religious groups, said he often heard such complaints. Insisting that Mr. Reagan did not take them for granted, Mr. Blackwell said, ''Without the support of these conservative groups, we would never have won the nomination or the general election in 1980.''

M. Stanton Evans, a syndicated columnist who is former chairman of the American Conservative Union, said the President had been ''illserved by some members of his staff who do not seem to share his commitment to the conservative program on which he ran.''

Mr. Evans contended that Mr. Reagan was surrounded by pragmatic advisers who were too willing to compromise. Foremost among these advisers, he said, are James A. Baker 3d, the White House chief of staff, and his deputy, Richard G. Darman, and Kenneth M. Duberstein, assistant to the President for legislative affairs.

''It is very difficult to administer a conservative revolution with people like that as your agents,'' Mr. Evans said, ''because they are not conservative revolutionaries but pragmatists.'' Criticism by Anti-Abortionists

Gary L. Curran, a spokesman for the American Life Lobby, an antiabortion group, said he was disappointed with Reagan appointees at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Specifically, he said the officials had done little to curtail the use of Federal funds for lobbying by family planning clinics. In addition, he said the officials had been slow to investigate reports that hospitals withheld medical care or food and water from handicapped infants, allowing them to die.

Mr. Reagan's critics and supporters both observed that there were relatively few ideological conservatives with enough government experience to qualify for high-level, policy-making positions. ''Conservatives by and large disliked and distrusted big government, especially the Federal Government, for so long that they did not know how it worked,'' the leader of a conservative organization said. Mr. Blackwell said the Reagan Administration was giving experience and credentials to ''a whole generation of conservatives.''

One conservative group still supporting Mr. Reagan is the National Conservative Political Action Committee, which plans to raise $5 million for rallies and advertising to publicize the President's achievements. The committee, which is independent of the Republican Party, helped defeat four prominent liberal Senators in 1980 and mounted negative advertising campaigns against several Democratic members of Congress last year.